Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Bleacher report: Luck will quickly replace Manning, 5 reasons


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know why we need to bring down the greatest decade of Colts football ever? The 2000s were the best we have ever experienced and a lot of that was due to Peyton. Why do we need to belittle it...A super bowl, two appearances, basically playoffs every year, the most wins in the decade, and basically the most exciting teams and explosive offenses anyone has ever witnessed. We should celebrate it...and look to the future that hopefully we can have something close or better again someday.

Luck will be great or bad or avg or whatever but it won't affect of my feelings on Peyton. Peyton orchastrated and offense in a way no one ever has before...or probably again. He often made more changes at the line in one play than the opposing quarterbacks did over an entire game. It was beautiful to watch and the most entertainment and impressive thing I have ever seen. Luck shouldn't be compared...he will run the team his own way and I will appreciate it no matter what it looks like or what his stats become. He may have more wins, super bowls, yards than Peyton in the end but it won't change what Peyton was....unique. Luck may very well get close to Peytons records and stats but in a league that has changed that is expected....but there is only one Sheriff in Indy and that was PM. Luck will have his own legacy and it should live on its own and its own merit...just like Johnny U's. I will never say Peyton was the greatest qb of all time...there are so many that did just as much or more but to me he was my favorite for how he did it.

Luck has replaced PM on the team and in our football hearts but no one will replace him in our memories.

My memory says 1 SB for (arguably) the best ever. Does your memory say more than 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but we sometimes have a way of talking ourselves into the highly unlikely. I'd be fine if Andrew Luck is on the level of Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger or Phillip Rivers. I'd be ecstatic if he's better than that.

to quote Lloyd Christmas, "so ur saying there's a chance!!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, 21, thank you!

No knock on our Hungarian friend, who may not be familiar with many American media outlets, but when many of us knock Bleacher Report THIS article is THE ***PERFECT*** example of what we mean.

Wow! Was that terrible!. There's 4-5 minutes of my life I can't get back. Not worth the time it took to read it. I may have to go wash my eyes out! And it may have also set women reporters back, oh, say, a century! :facepalm: :slaphead: :omg:

I won't waste a minute going point by point. It's not worth the effort.

BLECH!!!!

If YOu read the starting post again, You will realize, that not even I think this article good, but the topic itself is good to discuss. I think I've reached my aim...

Off-season is just the same in the media in every corner of the World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory says 1 SB for (arguably) the best ever. Does your memory say more than 1?

What is your point?? Dan Marino who I also consider one of the greatest ever has 0. I really don't know what you are getting at. I would have loved 13 of them but that didn't happen. How many Super Bowl victories has no baring on how I remember Peyton Manning. Sure they are a part but man watching him orchastrate that offense was pure poetry in motion. He was like an artist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If YOu read the starting post again, You will realize, that not even I think this article good, but the topic itself is good to discuss. I think I've reached my aim...

Off-season is just the same in the media in every corner of the World.

Again.... I repeat, I'm not knocking you.

Of course, the topic of Luck and Manning is always worth discussing. That's the nature of football and fandom... I get that.

But the story itself was written so badly, so amateurishly, so spectacularly badly, that it was painful to read. And frankly, a waste of anyone's time.

So, good topic. Horribly executed by the writer.

Just one person's opinion -- AND AGAIN -- no knock, or disrespect intended toward you. Really. Honestly. Sincerely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your point?? Dan Marino who I also consider one of the greatest ever has 0. I really don't know what you are getting at. I would have loved 13 of them but that didn't happen. How many Super Bowl victories has no baring on how I remember Peyton Manning. Sure they are a part but man watching him orchastrate that offense was pure poetry in motion. He was like an artist.

But everyone says Rings count (Don't know why, but they say that). Which is also the MAIN Reason why people started to ask "Is Eli Manning, better than Peyton Manning?" :facepalm: People don't realize it takes a TEAM to Win a Super Bowl, not ONE Player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing that wasnt done on paper, that would have been a waste of a piece, in my opinion it would have been such a waste of a piece of paper a fellow tree may have fell on his house with the thought......."one of my brothers was wasted on that writing?!"....as it is now I bet his computer circuits are frying because of all the effort they put into that crap article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing that wasnt done on paper, that would have been a waste of a piece, in my opinion it would have been such a waste of a piece of paper a fellow tree may have fell on his house with the thought......."one of my brothers was wasted on that writing?!"....as it is now I bet his computer circuits are frying because of all the effort they put into that crap article

:lol:lmao:lol:rotflmao That's soo Wrong. but Hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everyone says Rings count (Don't know why, but they say that). Which is also the MAIN Reason why people started to ask "Is Eli Manning, better than Peyton Manning?" :facepalm: People don't realize it takes a TEAM to Win a Super Bowl, not ONE Player

Well...I agree that rings have meaning....but yet don't believe they mean EVERYTHING. You are correct. I don't want to take away anything from Joe Montana or Tom Brady or Terry Bradshaw..because that is an important factor to their legacy...but I also believe you can have just as big a legacy without winning one.

Peyton has been to two....and played in enough playoff games to realize he is one heck of a qb. That said I don't need to look towards those things to see how great he is though...just watching him down through the years tell you he has qualities possessed by few. Sure some of the best defenses got the best of him....and when he needed a team to help him he was left wanting...but he was still able to overcome enough times for me to know he was no choke artist as others claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.... I repeat, I'm not knocking you.

Of course, the topic of Luck and Manning is always worth discussing. That's the nature of football and fandom... I get that.

But the story itself was written so badly, so amateurishly, so spectacularly badly, that it was painful to read. And frankly, a waste of anyone's time.

So, good topic. Horribly executed by the writer.

Just one person's opinion -- AND AGAIN -- no knock, or disrespect intended toward you. Really. Honestly. Sincerely.

I get it, don't worry.

The article is well...yeah You've said everything about it, only number of players' cards collected during childhood wasn't mentioned. They rarely write good articles (well I've never read one, but I don't want to exclude entirely the do it sometimes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everyone says Rings count (Don't know why, but they say that). Which is also the MAIN Reason why people started to ask "Is Eli Manning, better than Peyton Manning?" :facepalm: People don't realize it takes a TEAM to Win a Super Bowl, not ONE Player

People DO realize it...but what you have to understand is that quite often a player is judged in some capacity on what they were able to do in the post season. Do you remember back in 2007? Everybody was saying that if Brady won the Superbowl, he would be the greatest of all time. He lost. Remember in 2010? Everybody was saying that if Peyton won the Superbowl, he would be the greatest of all time. He lost. Theres a reason people say Lebron cant be compared to guys like Jordan until he has a few rings.

If the player doesnt win, does that undermine how good a player they are? Of course not...and perhaps its unfair that championships influence people's perceptions of a player so much. But thats the way its always been. Teams win championships, but quarterbacks run teams...and thats the reason why quarterbacks tend to get most of the credit when the team wins, and thats the reason why quarterbacks tend to shoulder much of the blame when the team loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...I agree that rings have meaning....but yet don't believe they mean EVERYTHING. You are correct. I don't want to take away anything from Joe Montana or Tom Brady or Terry Bradshaw..because that is an important factor to their legacy...but I also believe you can have just as big a legacy without winning one.

Peyton has been to two....and played in enough playoff games to realize he is one heck of a qb. That said I don't need to look towards those things to see how great he is though...just watching him down through the years tell you he has qualities possessed by few. Sure some of the best defenses got the best of him....and when he needed a team to help him he was left wanting...but he was still able to overcome enough times for me to know he was no choke artist as others claim.

Oh, everyone should know he's no "Choke" artist. Just watch the TWO New England games when we came from behind and Won. (One in the Playoffs & the Other in the Regular Season)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People DO realize it...but what you have to understand is that quite often a player is judged in some capacity on what they were able to do in the post season. Do you remember back in 2007? Everybody was saying that if Brady won the Superbowl, he would be the greatest of all time. He lost. Remember in 2010? Everybody was saying that if Peyton won the Superbowl, he would be the greatest of all time. He lost. Theres a reason people say Lebron cant be compared to guys like Jordan until he has a few rings.

If the player doesnt win, does that undermine how good a player they are? Of course not...and perhaps its unfair that championships influence people's perceptions of a player so much. But thats the way its always been. Teams win championships, but quarterbacks run teams...and thats the reason why quarterbacks tend to get most of the credit when the team wins, and thats the reason why quarterbacks tend to shoulder much of the blame when the team loses.

I know that's how it is but it's Stupid. A Quarterback only controls the Offense. Look at the Packers, one of the MOST Dominant Offenses. But due to POOR Defense, they were knocked out in the 1st Round. You can't blame Aaron Rodgers for that Game, but everyone will. But you can Blame Brady & his WR Core for their Super Bowl Lost this year. The defense didnt allow Eli's O to score that much. Brady's O usually puts up 30+ a Game, but didn't do it when it mattered the most

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that's how it is but it's Stupid. A Quarterback only controls the Offense. Look at the Packers, one of the MOST Dominant Offenses. But due to POOR Defense, they were knocked out in the 1st Round. You can't blame Aaron Rodgers for that Game, but everyone will. But you can Blame Brady & his WR Core for their Super Bowl Lost this year. The defense didnt allow Eli's O to score that much. Brady's O usually puts up 30+ a Game, but didn't do it when it mattered the most

That may be true...but you're also forgetting that if a player DOES have a bunch of rings, it DOES matter. Look...nobody in their right mind will ever make the case that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino. Those guys are on a long, long list of one-time Superbowl winning quarterbacks. And nobody is going to convince you that Ben Roethlisberger is better than Peyton Manning even though he has two while Peyton only has one (for now). Just dont 'automatically' throw out the importance of what championships do to a player's legacy and how people perceive them...especially in what has become, as described in this thread, a passing-first quarterback-friendly league. We all know that if Peyton had 3 or 4 rings right now, many of you would be using it as irrefutable proof that hes the greatest of all time. This is the downfall of the rings argument: When a great player has them, it is used as a justification for how great they are...but if a great player doesnt have them, the defense is that he was on a bad team.

Rings arent the only thing that matters, but they DO matter...and its the very reason why only one quarterback named something other than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers has won one in the last 11 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be true...but you're also forgetting that if a player DOES have a bunch of rings, it DOES matter. Look...nobody in their right mind will ever make the case that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino. Those guys are on a long, long list of one-time Superbowl winning quarterbacks. And nobody is going to convince you that Ben Roethlisberger is better than Peyton Manning even though he has two while Peyton only has one (for now). Just dont 'automatically' throw out the importance of what championships do to a player's legacy and how people perceive them...especially in what has become, as described in this thread, a passing-first quarterback-friendly league. We all know that if Peyton had 3 or 4 rings right now, many of you would be using it as irrefutable proof that hes the greatest of all time. This is the downfall of the rings argument: When a great player has them, it is used as a justification for how great they are...but if a great player doesnt have them, the defense is that he was on a bad team.

Rings arent the only thing that matters, but they DO matter...and its the very reason why only one quarterback named something other than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers has won one in the last 11 years.

If Peyton had as many Rings as Brady, I wouldn't use that. I like Peyton because of his Smarts & Skills. Rings don't matter to me, they may matter to everyone else. But I just give Credit where Credit is due. For instance, I think Sam Bradford is a GREAT QB. But the chances of him getting a Ring? Yeah, very Slim. But hey, anything can happen I suppose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rings arent the only thing that matters, but they DO matter...and its the very reason why only one quarterback named something other than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers has won one in the last 11 years.

Rings are a function of so many things - coaching, team play, and a little bit of luck in the postseason w.r.t matchups etc.

Personally, rings matter when all other things can be considered equal, like a decade of high level of QB play in the regular season, production on the field, enough 4th qtr. comebacks fueled by QB play etc.

Rings are almost like a mini-tie-breaker and should never be used exclusively, EVER, to quantify a QB's resume.

But then, factors like what does the QB really mean to that team, how can it be quantified? I remember that 'Viru named poster :)', that is a Pats fan, stating at the beginning of the Colts 2011 season that based on the Colts' 2010 season where we went 10-6, in order to match the difference between 16-0 and 11-5 i.e. 5 wins between the Pats 2007 & 2008 season without Brady, the Colts only need to win 5 games.

So, Brady was worth 5 games to the Pats, Peyton was worth 8 games, if you go by that analogy :). That is why Viru does not bring it up again, it was his logic, fair enough but it still portrayed Peyton in a better light, unfortunately :). Remember, I am not even using the excuse of Dallas Clark and Collie going on IR or MIA half the games at least in 2010 when they won 10 games.

It is not even a contest. The teams Brady played with and the coaching were most of the time better than the Manning era Colts. It showed in an equally high win pct. for the Pats in the regular season and was magnified in the postseason. The decline on the defensive help received in the postseason has been a big factor in the lack of SB rings since 2005 for Brady.

So, if Manning does not win a SB with the Broncos and Brady pads to his resume with more SB appearances, yes, the tie-breaker will go to Brady in the objective eyes if Brady continues to perform at the high level of QB play he has been performing. Brady however has been playing with house money with those 3 rings for the longest time, that is an advantage he will never lose, IMO :).

Oh well, we got from Luck vs Manning to Brady vs Manning. Let us get back on track :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory says 1 SB for (arguably) the best ever. Does your memory say more than 1?

Championships are a team effort. When it comes to a QB everyone sees them as if they are a tennis player or a golfer. I don't get it.

Tom Brady's championships can be held on the shoulders of the defense more than Tom.

The '03 championship we turned the ball over five times, and the Pats offense couldn't pull away farther than 10 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I finally read the "article" and I'm not sure which is worse.... the "article" itself or the fact that I have to flip through a slide show to read it.

I really try to avoid all things BR and Stampede blue but the few times I do read them, I always think about the book

The Gallant Gallstone talked about in Ayn Rand's Fountainhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Championships are a team effort. When it comes to a QB everyone sees them as if they are a tennis player or a golfer. I don't get it.

Tom Brady's championships can be held on the shoulders of the defense more than Tom.

The '03 championship we turned the ball over five times, and the Pats offense couldn't pull away farther than 10 points.

To magnify the importance of a shut down/clutch 3rd down defense, the Pats got up on the Giants 17-9 in the 3rd qtr. of the recent SB, and the Giants' D shut them down after that. Wish our D would have done that while we were up 17-13 vs Drew Brees and co. in the 3rd qtr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure when or why this turned into a Patriots thread or a Brady vs Peyton discussion...

It is the ringzzzz argument unfortunately brought up by one of our own, not sure what the point was while comparing Luck vs Peyton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure when or why this turned into a Patriots thread or a Brady vs Peyton discussion...

I apologize to everyone. I like to razz some of the Pats fans on here and they usually know it's a joke. But some newer members of the board probably don't know that and decided to jump on it.

Again, I'm sorry, let's please get back to discussing the brilliance that is BR, Luck will take over for Manning because:

1st Slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts

2nd Slide: Manning is no longer with the Colts and Luck was good in college

3rd slide: Luck is preparing to win and Manning will not win anymore games as a Colt because he is no longer with the Colts

4th slide: Because the Colts were bad last year without Manning (yeah I didn't understand that one either)

5th slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts.

I mean really, how can people not be absorbed and want to discuss the brilliance of that piece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to everyone. I like to razz some of the Pats fans on here and they usually know it's a joke. But some newer members of the board probably don't know that and decided to jump on it.

Again, I'm sorry, let's please get back to discussing the brilliance that is BR, Luck will take over for Manning because:

1st Slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts

2nd Slide: Manning is no longer with the Colts and Luck was good in college

3rd slide: Luck is preparing to win and Manning will not win anymore games as a Colt because he is no longer with the Colts

4th slide: Because the Colts were bad last year without Manning (yeah I didn't understand that one either)

5th slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts.

I mean really, how can people not be absorbed and want to discuss the brilliance of that piece?

Can't like this enough!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I am probably one of the biggest Peyton Manning fans there are (and I know there are a lot) but I'm not going to sit here forever and compare Manning and Luck. I hate that! I was all for trading the pick and bringing back Peyton but we moved on with Luck and I am going to cheer like crazy for the kid. That said it isn't fair to Luck, Manning, or the Colts to do comparisions as his career goes along. Two different guys with different scenerios but lucky for us they will have played for the same franchise. If we are fortunate to win more championships I will praise them and the players that won them on their own merit and not compare them to any other teams/players. Same thing if we fail...Luck has replaced Manning because he physically has replaced Manning. As to worrying about their greatness over time...I will evaluate them on their own performances. Joe Montana was a great qb but I don't base that on the fact on what others did....I base it off what he did. Dan Marino same way....I take their career and put it in a bubble and evaluate....I don't say one wasn't great because of what someone else did....that just seems foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to everyone. I like to razz some of the Pats fans on here and they usually know it's a joke. But some newer members of the board probably don't know that and decided to jump on it.

Again, I'm sorry, let's please get back to discussing the brilliance that is BR, Luck will take over for Manning because:

1st Slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts

2nd Slide: Manning is no longer with the Colts and Luck was good in college

3rd slide: Luck is preparing to win and Manning will not win anymore games as a Colt because he is no longer with the Colts

4th slide: Because the Colts were bad last year without Manning (yeah I didn't understand that one either)

5th slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts.

I mean really, how can people not be absorbed and want to discuss the brilliance of that piece?

Does this website have a place for Favorite All-Time Posts? If not, any moderator or someone connected with the website want to create one? Cause if so, I nominate CoffeeDrinker's brilliant effort here to be the first to go into the Hall of Fame.

That one is going to keep a smile on my face all day long!

Thanks, Coffee...... I'll have what he's having!! :thmup::worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to everyone. I like to razz some of the Pats fans on here and they usually know it's a joke. But some newer members of the board probably don't know that and decided to jump on it.

Again, I'm sorry, let's please get back to discussing the brilliance that is BR, Luck will take over for Manning because:

1st Slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts

2nd Slide: Manning is no longer with the Colts and Luck was good in college

3rd slide: Luck is preparing to win and Manning will not win anymore games as a Colt because he is no longer with the Colts

4th slide: Because the Colts were bad last year without Manning (yeah I didn't understand that one either)

5th slide: Luck was drafted by the Colts and Manning was let go by the Colts.

I mean really, how can people not be absorbed and want to discuss the brilliance of that piece?

Three words: It's Bleacher Report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped reading after the article started generalizing all Colts fans. They should come see the forum's NFL General section here. Then they'd see that Peyton is still far from a thing of the past with Indianapolis fans. I for one still hope that he'll come back to Indy after he retires and have a career somewhere in the organization.

With that being said, I still have very high hopes for Luck, and I don't think it's absurd to say he could one day match Manning, but I can see why so many people want to make the safer bet and say he won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha I agree with you. I read the first slide and I was like "Ok, I disagree for several reasons..." then I read the second slide and thought the same. Then I gave up and stopped reading. My list of disagreements with the article will be longer than the article itself.

Does that mean that the difference is greater than the subtraction of its parts? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong...I absolutely thoroughly enjoyed watching Manning on the field for the Colts. There is absolutely no better architect of the QB position than Manning. He did wonders for many people in the city of Indianapolis and many other places...

.....BUT....

He was a classic choke artist...I've been saying for YEARS and YEARS that Manning simply can not win big games. When it matters most he always choked. It's been near impossible for him to beat New England and San Diego...two teams we routinely matched up with in the playoffs. He has thrown more bad passes and more interceptions at more critical times in big games than any other QB (with his stature and capability) than any other QB.

He did win SB XLI yes...but seriously...REX GROSSMAN was the opposing QB here...GROSSMAN...had the Bears had any decent QB we surely would have easily lost that game.

If Luck proves to win more SB's than Manning...does that make him a better QB? Well..it depends on how he helps the teams win them. If he can provide the tenacity and absolute stunning poise and continuity that another Manning has provided his team then yes...yes he will be better than Peyton. Eli in my mind has passed Manning with his last SB win...because Eli backs up his words and he is far superior in the post season than Peyton could ever dream of.

Don't get me wrong, I always felt we had a chance with #18....but more often than not my fear of #18 missing critical throws and throwing multiple interceptions in the big games is what I felt the most. I will enjoy watching Manning on the Bronco's...who knows, maybe he'll be better.

Disagree on Peyton being a "choke artist", everyone of those playoff game losses were different in nature. Just had a great "discussion" with Superman on the last Chargers loss. The avg. starting field position for the Colts was close to insane in that game, special teams killed the Colts. The one season the defense really stepped up, the Colts won the super bowl, a luxury Eli has in NY. There were also critical dropped passes along the way, missed field goals before Vinateri showed up (another luxury Brady and NE had). Lots of reasons that dont fall on Peytons shoulders, its a team win and a team loss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...